Rich people's problems. Concord isn't like Boston so unless Boston Mayor Mumbles decides to ban plastic bottles, who cares about Concord? I assumed they sold all their soft drinks in crystal decanters anyways.

It looks like they are targeting water specifically. I saw no mention of Coke\Pepsi and other carbonated soft drinks being banned. If you're going to ban a plastic bottle for being a plastic bottle, the previous contents should be irrelevant and all the bottles should be banned. On the other hand, the whole thing is stupid. Recycle and it will be fine.

Hill said disposable water bottles flushed down storm drains are creating massive "floating islands of plastic" in the oceans, while their production and distribution consumes millions of gallons of fuel.

Look you old cow, just because some morons improperly dispose of their bottles doesnt mean the bottle is the problem. How in the hell are they getting into the storm drains? I would much rather see a $10k fine on the idiots that litter than a ban that affects everyone, even those responsible enough to put their bottle in the trash.

Their production and distribution may consume gallons of fuel but what production doesnt? Getting water into your tap consumes millions of gallons of fuel as well. Not to mention, what business is that of yours? If someone wants to buy the product anyway, that is between them and the seller.

"These people are very concerned about their rights but they have no sense of their obligations as citizens," she said.

I understand my obligations and I follow the damn law by not throwing my bottles in the gutter. If some other dolts dont, that is not my fault, or the fault of the damn bottles.

The last time I drank city water from the tap, it was not a pleasant experience. That shiat is disgusting. At least some basic filtration makes it palatable.

Which reminds me, some towns have a dual water system, one line is treated potable water and the other line is grey water(treated town sewage) for your lawns, so the article(can't find it) about it showed the lines were hooked up backwards to several homes for months... Yummy.

If companies were responsible for closing the loop and properly disposing of the products they shiat out to the world, the cost of such disposal would be built into the store price, and maybe we'd start seeing more environmentally-friendly product options.

The way things are now, we toss them into a cylindrical container and pretend they never end up in a landfill or in the middle of a lake somewhere, and someone in the future is left on the hook for cleanup.

The most maddening thing about this ban is that it will have absolutely no effect on the problem (the floating garbage patches) because it is targeting the wrong population. Go and google "philippine slums" or "indian slums" then click on "images." The cause of those volumes of plastic in the ocean is not rich, white folk in Massachusetts. Yet oddly, those are the folks, through some bizarre misplaced sense of guilt, blame themselves.

A ban on plastic, of all sorts, in third world slums would be far more effective in getting at the root of the problem (no, I am not proposing that as it would be unenforcable and equally ill-conceived). A more rationale solution of course would be to get those folks in the slums some damn garbage service and fine the shiat out of anyone that doesnt use it.

Please reread his original statement. You will discover that he is not wrong, and you are an asshole.

Yes he is asshole.

Size and visibility

Although many media and advocacy reports have suggested that the patch extends over an area larger than the continental U.S., recent research sponsored by the National Science Foundation suggests the affected area may be twice the size of Hawaii,[24][25] while a recent study concluded that the patch might be smaller.[26] This can be attributed to the fact that there is no specific standard for determining the boundary between the "normal" and "elevated" levels of pollutants and what constitutes being part of the patch. The size is determined by a higher-than-normal degree of concentration of pelagic debris in the water. Recent data collected from Pacific albatross populations suggest there may be two distinct zones of concentrated debris in the Pacific.[27]

The patch is not easily visible because it consists of very small pieces, almost invisible to the naked eye,[28] most of its contents are suspended beneath the surface of the ocean,[29] and the relatively low density of the plastic debris at, in one scientific study, 5.1 kilograms of plastic per square kilometer of ocean area.[23]

Please reread his original statement. You will discover that he is not wrong, and you are an asshole.

Yes he is asshole.

Size and visibility

Although many media and advocacy reports have suggested that the patch extends over an area larger than the continental U.S., recent research sponsored by the National Science Foundation suggests the affected area may be twice the size of Hawaii,[24][25] while a recent study concluded that the patch might be smaller.[26] This can be attributed to the fact that there is no specific standard for determining the boundary between the "normal" and "elevated" levels of pollutants and what constitutes being part of the patch. The size is determined by a higher-than-normal degree of concentration of pelagic debris in the water. Recent data collected from Pacific albatross populations suggest there may be two distinct zones of concentrated debris in the Pacific.[27]

The patch is not easily visible because it consists of very small pieces, almost invisible to the naked eye,[28] most of its contents are suspended beneath the surface of the ocean,[29] and the relatively low density of the plastic debris at, in one scientific study, 5.1 kilograms of plastic per square kilometer of ocean area.[23]

Kibbler:Cup_O_Jo: Ok this old person is batshiat crazy. There are no islands of floating plastic washed out to sea from storm drains. .....

You keep telling yourself that.

He/she is right. The problem is not the trivial amounts of plastic coming from storm drains. At least not here in the US. The source of all that plastic is third world slums, where they have no recycling, garbage collection, etc..

Ima4nic8or:The most maddening thing about this ban is that it will have absolutely no effect on the problem (the floating garbage patches) because it is targeting the wrong population. Go and google "philippine slums" or "indian slums" then click on "images." The cause of those volumes of plastic in the ocean is not rich, white folk in Massachusetts. Yet oddly, those are the folks, through some bizarre misplaced sense of guilt, blame themselves.

A ban on plastic, of all sorts, in third world slums would be far more effective in getting at the root of the problem (no, I am not proposing that as it would be unenforcable and equally ill-conceived). A more rationale solution of course would be to get those folks in the slums some damn garbage service and fine the shiat out of anyone that doesnt use it.

What happens is that the bottling industry, in order to deal with such a law and having to cater to these people, will eventually produce a more environmentally friendly bottle. Maybe out of decomposable material like corn husks or something. It will then become cheaper to produce and use, and then it will then be spread out to other states and countries.

Someone had to take the first stance and I'm glad Jean Hill made the effort. She's the Rosa Parks of plastic bottles.

"I find tap water disgusting! So I'm going to buy bottled water at a premium! And absolutely, under no circumstances take the issue up with my municipality that I pay taxes to and who appears to not be using that money!"

//I hate people.///I really hate people who pay a premium for a bottle of God damned water.

dericwater:Ima4nic8or: The most maddening thing about this ban is that it will have absolutely no effect on the problem (the floating garbage patches) because it is targeting the wrong population. Go and google "philippine slums" or "indian slums" then click on "images." The cause of those volumes of plastic in the ocean is not rich, white folk in Massachusetts. Yet oddly, those are the folks, through some bizarre misplaced sense of guilt, blame themselves.

A ban on plastic, of all sorts, in third world slums would be far more effective in getting at the root of the problem (no, I am not proposing that as it would be unenforcable and equally ill-conceived). A more rationale solution of course would be to get those folks in the slums some damn garbage service and fine the shiat out of anyone that doesnt use it.

What happens is that the bottling industry, in order to deal with such a law and having to cater to these people, will eventually produce a more environmentally friendly bottle. Maybe out of decomposable material like corn husks or something. It will then become cheaper to produce and use, and then it will then be spread out to other states and countries.

Someone had to take the first stance and I'm glad Jean Hill made the effort. She's the Rosa Parks of plastic bottles.

The way to do that though is through the free market. If folks in Mass. dont want plastic bottles and want cornhusk bottles then they wont buy the plastic ones and the bottle companies would be forced to act. Individuals can make that decision. Having government ban plastic bottles for a bunch of folks who are not the source of the problem and would prefer the plastic bottle is a screwy solution. Folks like miss Hill should be asking the U.N. to get laws in place banning plastic bottles in slums, or better yet, laws mandating garbage service. Lets face it, the bottle isnt the problem. The problem is the way it is being disposed of in some places.

Hill said disposable water bottles flushed down storm drains are creating massive "floating islands of plastic" in the oceans, while their production and distribution consumes millions of gallons of fuel.

Look you old cow, just because some morons improperly dispose of their bottles doesnt mean the bottle is the problem. How in the hell are they getting into the storm drains? I would much rather see a $10k fine on the idiots that litter than a ban that affects everyone, even those responsible enough to put their bottle in the trash.

Their production and distribution may consume gallons of fuel but what production doesnt? Getting water into your tap consumes millions of gallons of fuel as well. .

Ima4nic8or:The most maddening thing about this ban is that it will have absolutely no effect on the problem (the floating garbage patches) because it is targeting the wrong population. Go and google "philippine slums" or "indian slums" then click on "images." The cause of those volumes of plastic in the ocean is not rich, white folk in Massachusetts. Yet oddly, those are the folks, through some bizarre misplaced sense of guilt, blame themselves.

A ban on plastic, of all sorts, in third world slums would be far more effective in getting at the root of the problem (no, I am not proposing that as it would be unenforcable and equally ill-conceived). A more rationale solution of course would be to get those folks in the slums some damn garbage service and fine the shiat out of anyone that doesnt use it.

Damn. You are right. This ban isn't going to do much about this problem. It makes the liberal do-gooders feel like they are doing something though.

Ima4nic8or:dericwater: Ima4nic8or: The most maddening thing about this ban is that it will have absolutely no effect on the problem (the floating garbage patches) because it is targeting the wrong population. Go and google "philippine slums" or "indian slums" then click on "images." The cause of those volumes of plastic in the ocean is not rich, white folk in Massachusetts. Yet oddly, those are the folks, through some bizarre misplaced sense of guilt, blame themselves.

A ban on plastic, of all sorts, in third world slums would be far more effective in getting at the root of the problem (no, I am not proposing that as it would be unenforcable and equally ill-conceived). A more rationale solution of course would be to get those folks in the slums some damn garbage service and fine the shiat out of anyone that doesnt use it.

What happens is that the bottling industry, in order to deal with such a law and having to cater to these people, will eventually produce a more environmentally friendly bottle. Maybe out of decomposable material like corn husks or something. It will then become cheaper to produce and use, and then it will then be spread out to other states and countries.

Someone had to take the first stance and I'm glad Jean Hill made the effort. She's the Rosa Parks of plastic bottles.

The way to do that though is through the free market. If folks in Mass. dont want plastic bottles and want cornhusk bottles then they wont buy the plastic ones and the bottle companies would be forced to act. Individuals can make that decision. Having government ban plastic bottles for a bunch of folks who are not the source of the problem and would prefer the plastic bottle is a screwy solution. Folks like miss Hill should be asking the U.N. to get laws in place banning plastic bottles in slums, or better yet, laws mandating garbage service. Lets face it, the bottle isnt the problem. The problem is the way it is being disposed of in some places.

I don't recall Rosa Parks got blacks to be able to sit anywhere else besides the back of the bus through free market. Sometimes, it takes a direct shot action. Not everything is free-market changeable. Do you think the results and benefits of the Civil Rights Act could have been produced through free market action?

Conservatives love shiatting up the environment. Who cares if their children are born with asthma, allergies, and subpar intelligence? They're stickin' it to the libs when they pollute! Remind me what's so conservative about conservatives again?

chumboobler:It looks like they are targeting water specifically. I saw no mention of Coke\Pepsi and other carbonated soft drinks being banned. If you're going to ban a plastic bottle for being a plastic bottle, the previous contents should be irrelevant and all the bottles should be banned. On the other hand, the whole thing is stupid. Recycle and it will be fine.

Soda bottles are not a problem because they require a deposit and are thus recycled.

I was watching a documentary on the building of the transcontinental railroad in the late 1800s in the United States. There were two main problems with railroads at that time. One was the method to couple trains together and the other was the braking system. Both problems had solutions, but the railroads didn't bother to implement either because the cost (free market) was too great. It was cheaper to pay an engineer $1.50/day and if the guy loses a finger or two when trying to couple two cars together, so be it. Or, if the engineer got blown up trying to slow down a train with unworkable brakes, they'll just bag the guy and send the parts home.

It took Congress to enact laws, basically the 1800s version of OSHA, to forced the railroad companies to comply with better solutions. The funny thing was that by doing so, better coupling and better braking, the railroads earned even more revenue because trains could be more than 2 or 3 cars long. They could now have trains with up to 100 or more cars, all because of better coupling and braking systems, spurred by acts of Congress.

Similarly, once people have enough of plastic bottles, through laws, and not free market, the bottling industry will be forced to look for alternatives. And that will make improvements in the future.

James F. Campbell:Conservatives love shiatting up the environment. Who cares if their children are born with asthma, allergies, and subpar intelligence? They're stickin' it to the libs when they pollute! Remind me what's so conservative about conservatives again?

badhatharry:Ima4nic8or: The most maddening thing about this ban is that it will have absolutely no effect on the problem (the floating garbage patches) because it is targeting the wrong population. Go and google "philippine slums" or "indian slums" then click on "images." The cause of those volumes of plastic in the ocean is not rich, white folk in Massachusetts. Yet oddly, those are the folks, through some bizarre misplaced sense of guilt, blame themselves.

A ban on plastic, of all sorts, in third world slums would be far more effective in getting at the root of the problem (no, I am not proposing that as it would be unenforcable and equally ill-conceived). A more rationale solution of course would be to get those folks in the slums some damn garbage service and fine the shiat out of anyone that doesnt use it.

Damn. You are right. This ban isn't going to do much about this problem. It makes the liberal do-gooders feel like they are doing something though.[static.guim.co.uk image 630x390]

That is some good old fashion medieval trash service you got there. What you have to do is set the stream on fire and throw some lime in. That'll fix it, alright. Hmm, mm. Just next time have the stream run around your town, so as to keep out the enemy. Kind of like a moat or something.

dericwater: "I don't recall Rosa Parks got blacks to be able to sit anywhere else besides the back of the bus through free market. Sometimes, it takes a direct shot action. Not everything is free-market changeable. Do you think the results and benefits of the Civil Rights Act could have been produced through free market action?"

Fair enough but I would say these are two very different issues. It just seems inherently wrong to punish American citizens and screw American companies financially just because governments in third world crapholes are not living up to their responsibilities by providing garbage service. Lets put the blame where it belongs. The water bottle makers are not the ones throwing the bottles in the waterways, nor are the vast majority of citizens in MA..

YouSirAreAMaroon:chumboobler: It looks like they are targeting water specifically. I saw no mention of Coke\Pepsi and other carbonated soft drinks being banned. If you're going to ban a plastic bottle for being a plastic bottle, the previous contents should be irrelevant and all the bottles should be banned. On the other hand, the whole thing is stupid. Recycle and it will be fine.

Soda bottles are not a problem because they require a deposit and are thus recycled.

Not everywhere. But maybe that does help a bit. I could see a portion of people returning them for deposit like most everyone used to do with glass soda and beer bottles. But I think now people just absord the cost. But then, I don't live where deposits are collected so I am just throwin bs.

I switched to a water filter at home years ago. It did take some adjusting. I had bought cases at a time weekly. Now I just reuse the ones I buy occasionally for awhile, until they start to get yucky. But will then make sure they are thrown away in a recycle bin.Still, if they were completly banned that would be a headache. To convienient to just grab a water when you're out and about.

Ima4nic8or:The most maddening thing about this ban is that it will have absolutely no effect on the problem (the floating garbage patches) because it is targeting the wrong population. Go and google "philippine slums" or "indian slums" then click on "images." The cause of those volumes of plastic in the ocean is not rich, white folk in Massachusetts. Yet oddly, those are the folks, through some bizarre misplaced sense of guilt, blame themselves.

A ban on plastic, of all sorts, in third world slums would be far more effective in getting at the root of the problem (no, I am not proposing that as it would be unenforcable and equally ill-conceived). A more rationale solution of course would be to get those folks in the slums some damn garbage service and fine the shiat out of anyone that doesnt use it.

It's the remnants of the Puritanical influence on Massachusetts politics. They want to be all activist-y, yet they're forcing themselves on the people who aren't the problem, nor have they ever been. Plus, one of the major things this place is overlooking is that it's all but forcing everyone in town to go to one of the seven towns surrounding them to go spend their money on - you guessed it - plastic bottled liquids to bring back into town because they just are that much more practical. So basically, the ban is just making political busybodies happy that they're "helping the earth' when they're really just making their elitist little town nicer to them.

\same could be said for most of eastern Massachusetts' small towns, for that matter, almost universally so for Metro West

dericwater:What happens is that the bottling industry, in order to deal with such a law and having to cater to these people, will eventually produce a more environmentally friendly bottle. Maybe out of decomposable material like corn husks or something. It will then become cheaper to produce and use, and then it will then be spread out to other states and countries.

They did this. There's a whole series of plastic biodegradable bottles made from corn.

The problem is... they suck.

They're porous, and the water evaporates right through the surface of the bottles. I have one in my fridge from a few months ago (well inside the "use by" date), and while it's still sealed, almost 1/3 of the water is gone. It's shrinking from the vacuum. I'm going to keep the thing until it either breaks or is completely empty.

8Fingers:YouSirAreAMaroon: chumboobler: It looks like they are targeting water specifically. I saw no mention of Coke\Pepsi and other carbonated soft drinks being banned. If you're going to ban a plastic bottle for being a plastic bottle, the previous contents should be irrelevant and all the bottles should be banned. On the other hand, the whole thing is stupid. Recycle and it will be fine.

Soda bottles are not a problem because they require a deposit and are thus recycled.

Not everywhere. But maybe that does help a bit. I could see a portion of people returning them for deposit like most everyone used to do with glass soda and beer bottles. But I think now people just absord the cost. But then, I don't live where deposits are collected so I am just throwin bs.

Some states do. A quick search turns up New York, Connecticut, Oregon, California, Maine and Hawaii.